Al Gore’s Inconvenient Loot

March 2, 2007

Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can’t afford to play on Gore’s terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

Generation is based in London, with its U.S. offices in Washington, DC. The firm will manage the assets of institutional investors such as pension funds, foundations and endowments, as well as those of select high net worth individuals.* Generation expects to make extensive use of long-term performance based fees. Generation will begin its investment management business in early 2005.

* like Al Gore

Gore’s company, GIM was specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming. The Global Warming crowd has told us that just recently new science emerged confirming the alleged fact that Global Warming is man made. So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004? Is it possible Gore knew what the science would say before it was out? And even if not, can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be trusted as an honest broker on that topic? Talk about giving the fox the keys to the hen penthouse.

Even if Global Warming did exist, in principle, what’s the difference between war profiteering and this? One could justifiably argue that Gore is taking advantage of, in his opinion, a catastrophic situation to clean up – and I don’t mean the environment.

Here’s a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore’s control. And, as you’ll see below, Gore’s selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.

According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns. If we borrow John Edward’s so-called two Americas concept for a second, this all means higher prices and taxes with more regulation and an altered standard of living for people like you and me, while Al Gore sits ensconced in his other America reaping profits from each new government mandate for us, business and even government itself. It’s win win, alright, but mostly for Al.

To add insult to injury, Gore chose Peter S. Knight, an old friend and colleague some are sure to recall, as the US President of GIM.

Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton’s successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.

Atty Gen Janet Reno decides against any further investigation of Peter Knight, Pres Clinton’s 1996 campaign manager in connection with office building development in nation’s capital; such an investigation could have led to naming independent counsel to look further into activities of Knight, who is also former top assistant to Vice Pres Al Gore.

Dispute over Democratic Party campaign-financing shifts to Zachary Knight, 13-year-old son of Peter S Knight, Clinton-Gore campaign chairman in 1996, who was given $20,000 in stock by William Haney 3d, chairman of Molten Metal Technology Inc; Republicans believe gift, which came after father was named chairman of campaign, was really payment to Knight, who had worked as $7,000-per-month lobbyist for company; Knight denies involvement in any impropriety; photo

If Gore’s motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in? And given the history of Gore and Knight, are these people we should trust to drive a re-vamping of the world economy at the same time they’re lining their pockets because of our much smaller carbon footprints?

If Al Gore is successful with this latest scheme, Gore and his cronies are going to be much more $green$ than most of the earth. And the only green in this for you and me is the kind that accompanies envy as Gore trucks around on private jets putting dollars to offset his extravagance into a cash machine generating profits on the backs of the middle class with misrepresented sciencethat doesn’t deserve to be called science at all.

Mr. Gore starts out, ironically enough, asserting the importance of peer-reviewed science. I call this ironic because the misrepresentation that follows (a) hasn’t been peer reviewed, and (b) the peer-reviewed literature contradicts the misrepresentation.

From the Center For Public Integrity: one of the issues involving both Knight and carbon friendly Al was the installation of a hot tub and steam shower in the Master Bedroom of the VP’s house. How Green is that?

Here’s what the Center found about some of the most generous contributors to the foundation: Peter S. Knight…

Peter S. Knight, Gore’s former chief of staff, managed Gore’s first bid for the presidency in 1988. In 1989, he began lobbying for the firm Wunder, Diefendorfer, Cannon and Thelan. Given his closeness to Gore and the rest of the Clinton administration, corporations now pay Knight upward of $10,000 a month to wield his influence with Gore. With the help of his new clients, Knight soon cemented a new role for himself as Gore’s "chief of fund raising."

Since 1996, Knight’s various lobbying and fund-raising activity has been the subject of a Federal Election Commission investigation, a Justice Department inquiry and two House Commerce Committee probes.

Knight also solicited $10,000 contributions from foundations run by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), Coca-Cola Company, MCI Communications (now MCI WorldCom, Inc.), Time Warner Inc. and Microsoft Corporation (Chairman Bill Gates also contributed a $30,000 glass sculpture). Under Gore’s supervision, the foundation pledged to take corporate money only through their foundations, not from corporations directly. The $10,000 paid by the Coca-Cola Company, however, came out of the corporate account.

AdSense 300×250

NewsMax Trending Now

Comments:

Al Gore uses a lot of energy. Duh. Do you travel across the globe constantly? No. Does your home house a global communications network, two fully staffed offices and secret service detail? No. Comparing yourself or \”average\” person to what amounts to a sizable business is purposefully misleading. You and your readers know it too, that\’s why you\’ve moved the goalpost towards carbon credits.
\”Al was the installation of a hot tub and steam shower in the Master Bedroom of the VP\’s house. How Green is that?\”
I don\’t know. Neither do you. I guarantee it doesn\’t use as much energy as other rich people\’s hot tubs. But that\’s not your point anymore, is it? It\’s that he\’s rich and he has a big house. Rich people can\’t talk about Global Warming. They\’re Rich!!!!!!! Goal Post moved.
\”So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004?\”
Gore wrote Earth in the Balance in 1993. I\’m sure he\’s been investing in these types of industries well before 2004. He also wrote Access America: Reengineering Through Information Technology in 1997 well before the big commercial boom of the internets. I\’m sure he\’s got some money invested in things like the google.
You see what you\’re doing? You are so filled with loathing of the man who got more votes than your king that you are actually arguing against capitalism. You are arguing against investing in the future of this great nation. Michigan will never get it\’s auto industry back until we build the next generation of clean vehicles. Why do you hate progress, and a clean environment, and people from Detroit?
Hey…we can\’t all be as altruistic as the Bushes, Cheneys and Rumsfelds who happend to have a monetary stake in what happens in the middle east. Whoops, Saddam Hussein \”defied U.N. resolutions\” time to cash in–I mean spread freedom. Oh, some poor soldier lost a leg because of an IED…Cha Ching!!!! We can just short change \’em at Walter Reed.
Funny. Walter Reed hasn\’t been mention much on this blog. Why is that Dan?

Science H. Reason, Dan. Don’t you know it’s only a sin to be rich and have conflicts of interest when you’re a conservative? The Goracle gets a pass and has capitalism redefined for him to boot.
Bemoan those who insult Scientific Consensus and his prophet The Goracle (Carbon offsets be upon him).

By Gore’s religious hyperbole and by telling that the media should “stop asking questions or reporting dissenting views and simply fall in line” says The Anchoress. Meanwhile, Bill Hobbs and Dan @ Riehl World View look at the carbon offsets…

You boys better stop that criticism of Al Whore….uh….Gore. Right now, or there’s no telling what might happen, especially in regards to redifining capitalism. Another week or two and the Left will completely accept capitalism, well, just as long as it applies to things that are “green”. Forget anything else, though. Not oil. Not coal. Not nuclear.

Man, you guys sure do hate Al Gore. First it was a sin to use electricty, even when that electricty is generated by cleaner energy, and is offset; now it’s a sin to make a profit from the same cleaner energy production – which is pretty funny, given that one of the loony “arguments” against doing anything about global warming is that it will lead to a reduction of profits.
It’s a start-up, morons. Start-ups require individuals or entities with a lot of capital to get going. The average Joe doesn’t have that capital; thus the average Joe rarely has a hand in capitalization process – ever. Of course the project will become more acessible to the average investor in the furture. Are you really dense enough to believe that anyone interested in a profit wants to EXCLUDE the vast majority of investors?
You people are like spoiled teenagers whining about the smart kids getting the attention. But, you have to grow up some day.

Dan – Can you try to get some information from Generation Investment Management?
The company was founded by Al Gore and David Blood. This company allegedly sold Mr. Gore carbon offsets for his carbon neutral lifestyle.
I asked if they would send me an annual report and financial statements. I was told they are a private employee owned LLP and weren’t required to share financials. So I said, OK, then can they give me a list of specific projects or investments they have funded. They wouldn’t do that either.
Very strange. I have done searches on the company and can find no press releases or other information where GIM made ANY investments. I’m not saying they haven’t or that Mr. Gore did not indeed purchase carbon offsets. There just isn’t any records that I can find.
Perhaps you can do better.

Maybe you idiot cons didnt get the memo, but that moron GW is President and has been making an ass of himself and America since 1/01. You fools should go win your war on terror or something. For starters, it might be nice to actually DEFEAT and ELIMINATE the Taliban. After that, you might try either winning in Iraq (haha) or just cutting your losses and admitting that it was a BIG mistake. Either way, you clowns look bad.

Oh, and to the Columbo above who wants to know more about Generation Investment Management – they are a private LLP, meaning Limited Liability Partnership and don’t have to tell ‘investigators’ like you or the Natalee Holloway Sleuth that runs this site anything. Morons…

Did Dan Riehl just launch a full page diatribe against the horrors of a capitalist society? Exxon pulls down a $40 billion dollar yearly profit and Dan goes off the deep end because Al Gore stands mere millions in Green Energy? They’ve been talking about Global Warming since the 70s and you call out Gore on some sort of insider-trading spoof in 2004? Are you fucking kidding me?
Seriously, Dan. How much is the CEI tipping you for hit jobs like this? What sort of wingnut welfare program are you on that would compel you to produce this absolute drivel?
As for Halliburton, last I checked Halliburton is war-profiteering (ie, taking in huge government no-bid contracts to support an illegal, pointless war). Tennesse Green Power is setting up solar panels over bus terminals. When Tennesse Green Power lobbies Congress to invade a third-world country, maybe we can talk. Till then, at least try to be a little less intellectually dishonest.

Wow Dan you must have hit a nerve with a high speed drill! They are literally falling all over themselves trying to tell you to shut up and stop picking on Big Al ( and I do mean BIG ). Keep it up, they are always great for a laugh.

Let’s see, ever since Al Gore has been caught with his “energy consumption pants down”, so to speak, we see lefties now suddenly furiously defending:
Energy Investment Companies posing as false fronts for reducing atmospheric C02
A Gross personal financial conflict of interest, ostensibly defended as “capitalism at work”
A hyper-moralistic doomsday preacher who doesn’t practice what he preaches
Profligate personal energy consumption of a rich white privileged American. Didn’t you know that America’s big energy problem is that we have 6% of the world’s population, but consume 25% of the world’s energy? Any idea why?
How am I supposed to convince people to switch towards using cleaner sources of energy if Al & Co. don’t own up to all this crap and show a lot more transparency and honesty? Yeah, we’ve got big problems with overconsumption of dirty energy. (Global warming probably isn’t one of them, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic.) Maybe a little less sanctimony, and humility towards those less enlightened, might actually move things forward a bit?
Come on guys, concede a point for once. It won’t kill you. This hypocrisy doesn’t pass the smell test.

Imagine if KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, built a power plant and then purchased pollution offsets from their own privately held LLP that produces NO financial or other records.
Is there any environmentalist in the world that wouldn’t be outraged at this? Is this not what Al Gore is doing?
At the end of the day all we have to prove Gore’s zero carbon footprint is Al Gore’s word.

“This hypocrisy doesn’t pass the smell test.”
Hey, whatever. Your President is in the trash, your Congress and Senate majorities are gutted. In the end, it doesn’t really matter if you stick your heads in the ground and dig for slime (or just invent it – the right has such a bad track record on this its credibility is long dead).
It’s just exhausting to see pro-Capitalists have a hissy fit because Al Gore is a capitalist too. Or watch people launch into diatribes about how Al Gore is wrecking America by mentioning Global Warming, when the past six years have been nothing but Terri Shavio con-games and invisible nuclear weapons.
But I guess it takes one to know one, so maybe the righties are seeing something I’m just not. Heck, maybe Al Gore is secretly processing uranium in a bunker in Tennesse. Who knows? I’m sure the Office of Special Plans will be ready with a press-release shortly.

Just saw something in the vile and much maligned conservative gossip rag, AKA as National Geographic. Heard about Mars warming? Me neither. Must be all the SUVs up there.
Nat Geographic on Mars Warming, Who Knew?

Hyper link did not work for some reason. Google ” Mars Warming, National Geographic and February 28, 2007 you will find the article. If any knows if tags are different on TypePad than other blooger software let me know the secret.

“so maybe the righties are seeing something I’m just not.”
You can’t be taken seriously Z. If one day former VP Cheney started a company to do the same thing for advanced oil drilling techniques, then used his former office to run around promoting the need, the same people defending Gore would be screaming conflict of interest, corruption, etc.
Save it, Z – your denial doesn’t add up.

Al Gore is not prcoessing uranium in a bunker in Tennessee, No in fact he is mining zinc in two separate mines in Carthage Tennessee. Has been for a very long time. I am sure since you are so focused on hypocricy, that this rape of Mother Earth will mobilize you into action.

Science H. Reason, Dan. Don’t you know it’s only a sin to be rich and have conflicts of interest when you’re a conservative? The Goracle gets a pass and has capitalism redefined for him to boot.
Bemoan those who insult Scientific Consensus and his prophet The Goracle (Carbon offsets be upon him).
You hit it right on the head. Legalize, why am I not surprised that one dirt bag lawyer is defending a dirt bag from his party? He could have gotten the money from wealthy individuals too. However he limited it to big corporations. AND he founded it in England where monopolies are allowed. The goal is big, big, money for himself. I guess he wants to be the next Soros. He hypes up a bogus threat then forms a company to make money off of it. Can you say con man boys and girls?

This is a devastating critique. This basically confirms that Gore has been marketing Global Warming as a way to convince people to buy carbon offsets or solicit from eco-friendly companies, all of which Gore’s hedge fund has a stake in. The Securities and Exchange Commission forms don’t lie, even though Gore might. There is no way to rebut these facts:
1. Gore’s hedge fund invests in “eco-friendly” companies.
2. Gore has been flying around the world telling everyone to use eco-friendly things that those companies make, or to buy “carbon offsets” from those “eco-friendly” companies.
3. When people buy carbon offsets or shop at Whole Foods (as an example), those companies selling the carbon offsets, or Whole Foods, make money. Gore’s hedge fund, as an investor, gets a part of that profit.
4. Gore ALSO makes money because he’s Chairman of the investment manager to his hedge fund, which probably takes a 2.00% management fee plus a performance fee of 20% or so (standard in the hedge fund industry).
As I said, this is a devastating critique of Gore. It basically confirms he’s a snake-oil salesman.

“You can’t be taken seriously Z. If one day former VP Cheney started a company to do the same thing for advanced oil drilling techniques, then used his former office to run around promoting the need, the same people defending Gore would be screaming conflict of interest, corruption, etc.
Save it, Z – your denial doesn’t add up.”
Al Gore doesn’t have a long history of making shit up. We don’t have directly contradictory quotes from Al Gore’s time in the Senate and his time as VP. Al Gore has been markedly consistant in his environmental views, so when he starts a company directly in line with those environmental views, he has a history of credibility.
Dick Cheney has been caught lying or being wrong so many times in the last 6 years that anything he does is suspect. He’s been giving wholesale government handouts in the form of no-bid contracts to the company of which he was an executive officer.
The difference between Al Gore and Dick Cheney is that Al Gore isn’t sucking down our tax dollars when he makes his documentaries or promotes his green initatives. Gas isn’t $2-3/gallon because Al Gore invaded a foreign country to encourage renewable energy growth. Al Gore isn’t doing anything wrong. And yet, with Walter Reed in shambles, with a bleeding war plunging our country into record deficits, with Wall Street at the mercy of the Chinese economy, with US saber-rattlings against Iran, you guys go into a screaming conspiracy-ladden fit over Al Gore saying we need to buy more hybrid cars.
The country is falling apart at the seems, and you guys don’t give a fuck. But one man wins an Oscar over Global Warming, and you’ve suddenly all got backbones and missions and rightous indignation to spare.
Well spare me. Please.

mightyjoeyoung,
“Does your home house a global communications network, two fully staffed offices and secret service detail?”
Wrong. Current TV runs out of San Franciso. Just take a look at where people who work there actually work. http://www.current.tv/jobs
I’d fisk the rest of that, but it’s giving me a headache.

“Al Gore has been markedly consistant in his environmental views, so when he starts a company directly in line with those environmental views, he has a history of credibility.”
And when he moves into a house that sucks power like a small factory, well, let’s just ignore that.
Look, a carbon credit! Grab it!

“And when he moves into a house that sucks power like a small factory, well, let’s just ignore that.
Look, a carbon credit! Grab it!”
Dude. Whatever. We can play the “solar and wind power never existed, I don’t know what you’re talking about” game till we’re blue in the face. If you want to sing yourself to sleep with talk of “indulgences” and carbon credits, go nuts.

Its from ST reader Great White Rat, who recently made an interesting discovery about the Goracle:
More Gore nonsense. This is from the original article in the Nasville newspaper when the story broke:
Gore helped found Generation Investment Man…

This is just ill-informed nonsense.
Non-indexed investment funds are regarded by the SEC as inherently risky investments. Marketing directly to individual-level buyers risks being fined or shut down if the buyers can claim they didn’t have sufficient information to evaluate their risks – which, in a speculative enterprise such as this, the average buyer does not. But “sophisticated investors” fall outside this category; the SEC assumes that they have the expertise to take their own risks. “Sophisticated investors” is a legal term that is defined to include professional money managers and “high net worth individuals” – which in turn is usually defined as having a personal net worth greater than $2 million. (Yes, by definition that makes Paris Hilton a sophisticated investor – a scary thought – but those who’ve actually earned that much money are assumed to know what to do with it.) Gore’s fund targets sophisticated investors – as almost every clever-pants speculative investment fund does. This is industry standard practice. (The overhead cost of managing fund contributions of only a few hundred dollars at a time also means it isn’t worth it to them to recruit small investors. But again, this is no more than standard business reasoning.)
As for the purpose of the fund, it brings market leverage to bear on the environmental crisis by supporting and investing in the long-term growth of businesses with sustainable business practices. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to invest in their fund; you just have to believe in their ability to find successful investment targets. If you think they can make money, you have an incentive to invest with them – which means that their fund inherently puts non-environmentalists’ money to work supporting environmentally sound business, out of purely economic motives alone. Isn’t that the kind of “market solution” you’re supposed to support?
As for founding the business three years ago – you really think that the people who are concerned about global warming only woke up to it in the last three years? You clearly have your head in the sane, but for those who are serious about this problem, setting up insitutions to deal with it has been in the works far longer than that.
The rest is just weird ranting. None of this has anything to do with “carbon footprints” or who uses how much energy. GIM is an ordinary “growth” investment fund with a particular investment strategy. It was founded for the purpose of supporting sustainable businesses, but it operates the same way all such funds do, each of which has their own pet investment theories. Gore’s not making money off your carbon offsets, if you even use any, and if he did, again, isn’t that the sort of thing you’re supposed to support? By investing in the company that trades carbon offsets, he creates a market for such trades, and those trades support renewable energy resources. That’s the kind of investment that brings social goods as well as profits, but if the investment is attractive from the profit perspective alone, isn’t that an even better and more likely way to achieve the social benefit?
And as others have pointed out, there’s nothing hypocritical or unusal about Gore’s energy usage; what’s different is that he tries to do something about it. What you can’t seem to stand is that he does it in a way that uses the market for good ends.
Really, you’re just bent out of shape because Gore has money and is playing your game to his own purposes – so far, successfully. Having actual no clue about the people you’re attacking, you seem to assume that liberals reflexively hate the rich or business people, and that therefore it’s hypocritical of them to become either of those things themselves. In fact, liberals don’t hate the rich – they hate assholes. That those two categories are almost indistinguishable is not our fault.

“But I guess it takes one to know one, so maybe the righties are seeing something I’m just not.”
Hey I’ll agree with ya on that one. I’ve watched in disgust as church congregations I was a part of got seduced by money-grubbing televangelists, livin’ the high life all the while constantly hitting up for contributions from people who really couldn’t afford it. Yeah, I know what you mean, and it stinks.
Just like this whole mess. We’re sorry to point out that hypocrisy is a general human failing and doesn’t have a particular political calling card. So deal with it. Your cause (if it really is CO2 reduction) will be better off for it in the long run.
If that’s not really your cause, then carry on, as I suppose you will. At least we all know what to do now, to get the secular “blessing”.

Generation Investment Management has the same goals that Enron (under Lay and Skilling) did: to make tons of money out of tinkering with natural resource allocation. Enron tried to do it by pushing real hard for the Kyoto agreement. Generation is doing it by pushing real hard for regulations requiring “carbon trading”.
Let’s hope that GIM meets the same fate.
I have no problem with Gore living in a big house, driving 12 SUVs, private-jetting all over the country. If I had that kind of money, I’d be doing exactly the same thing. But since he does live like that, he should keep his big fat mouth shut and stop telling the rest of us “little people” how to live.

\\\”this time for being a frigging narrator.\\\”
By narrator, do you mean being the entire subject of a Documentary? Muhammad Ali took the stage when When We Were Kings won the Oscar. Is he stealing credit in the movie made about him?
\\\”Current TV runs out of San Franciso\\\”
Yeah? So? Al and Tipper Gore\\\’s offices are run out of their homes. They aren\\\’t bloggers and day traders. They are two of the most influential people in American culture (whether you like that fact or not). They travel the world to spread their messages (whether you like that message or not) and they have to use a lot of energy to do so. Since we know they are taking steps to reduce their energy consumption (like working from home and installing solar panels) the only thing you\\\’ve got on them is that they are rich. Al Gore is a hypocrite because he doesn\\\’t live in a mud hut powered by potato batteries.

\\\”this time for being a frigging narrator.\\\”
By narrator, do you mean being the entire subject of a Documentary? Muhammad Ali took the stage when When We Were Kings won the Oscar. Is he stealing credit in the movie made about him?
\\\”Current TV runs out of San Franciso\\\”
Yeah? So? Al and Tipper Gore\\\’s offices are run out of their homes. They aren\\\’t bloggers and day traders. They are two of the most influential people in American culture (whether you like that fact or not). They travel the world to spread their messages (whether you like that message or not) and they have to use a lot of energy to do so. Since we know they are taking steps to reduce their energy consumption (like working from home and installing solar panels) the only thing you\\\’ve got on them is that they are rich. Al Gore is a hypocrite because he doesn\\\’t live in a mud hut powered by potato batteries.

Wow Kieth. You write like someone who knows a thing or two about how free markets, investments, and capitalism works.
You obviously hate America and are part of the liberal/communist/fascist/Atheist/ plot to destroy the world economy by forcing mom and pop Republican American to trade in their SUV\’s for golf carts.

Kevin,
Thanks for acutally trying to engage the argument. I don’t agree with everything you said, but in general your analysis is on-the-mark.
I’ve looked at investing in publicly available “green” mutual funds, because I want to put my money where my mouth is as far as clean energy sources. And what I found out is that most of the companies that qualify as “green”, are simply good, ordinary companies that have jumped through a few extra hoops to eliminate use of environmentally hazardous chemicals and the like. All well and good, I celebrate them, but most of these activities usually get criticized by environmental activists as “token”, which unfortunately in many of the cases, there are.
OK, no problem so far. Nothing illegal or even unethical. But on the other hand, there’s not a lot going on in these green companies to seriously reduce or replace their fossil fuel consumption, not beyond what any company would already do on its own to reduce it’s costs of manufacturing.
The point is that these investments are being trumped as doing enough to offset typical (or excessive) carbon consumption by other individuals. I’m sorry, we’re not convinced, we’re just supposed to take Al Gore’s word. You wouldn’t if you were on the other side of the debate, so don’t expect us to.
And if (as I strongly suspect) the balance sheets really aren’t balancing with regard to carbon impact, don’t people concerned about the impact of CO2 really want to know this information? Because if that’s the case, then the we’re all just digging ourselves deeper in the hole, maybe at a slightly slower rate.
I don’t want to see environmentalists laughed out of town on this, becase I am one. I want to see Al Gore take the lead, and demand that he and all of his followers sharpen their pencils, and show us clearly and non-condescendingly how this all works. We’re conservatives, I’m sorry. Y’all will have to speak slowly and repeat yourselves a lot. But it will be worth it, I promise.
If this all is “weird ranting” then so be it.

This is ALL about hypocrisy. Al Gore wants everyone to live in a manner he himself refuses to. I don’t even have a big problem with him wanting to cash in on carbon offsets except that I believe they promote the same exact “pollute all you want if you buy these” deals that has gotten us all living in a pollution filled world in the first place. Pretty much Gore got caught the same as that evangelist guy (Haggard) who got caught with male prostitutes and shooting up meth.
If Gore was serious about reducing his carbon footprint and living in a manner that promoted ecology then he’d live in a house like this:
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm
Some people might find it strange that this house is owned by George W. Bush near Crawford Texas.

Gore is marketing to sophisticated investors ( in this case a subset known as rich stupid liberals with guilty consciences ). He is drawing a salary from GIM as well so his whole offsets spiel absolving himself from being an energy hog, rings a bit hollow to me. Unsophisticated investors (ie most Americans )could not even buy from this company and would never be granted a officer title and a large salary even if they could. Bet me the money/salary is outsized to his time contribution and exceeds the cost of his procured credits. In other words a sham.
And finally I could care less if Gore makes money doing this. But going around the country giving speeches scolding everyone on their excessive energy usage and the resulting CO2 emissions is frankly galling.

Never mind. From one of the above links to The Tennessean:
“Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe…”

watching the leftists defend the indefensible is highly entertaining
isn’t the goracle the same guy i saw on stage last week telling me that global warming is a moral problem?
his lack of morals is showing
instead of defending gore, why aren’t you people supporting clean carbon free nuclear power?

Al Gore says governments havent done enough about Global warming because the media is too balanced, and that balance brings a bias.
Got that? Hes telling the media they have to stop asking questions or reporting dissenting views and si…

\”If Gore was serious about reducing his carbon footprint…\”
He\’d convert to Green energy, install solar panels, use energy efficient lighting, work from home, buy carbon credits, and…wait, that\’s EXACTLY what he\’s doing. For wingnuts Gore can only be serious if he wasn\’t rich, traveled the world via experimental gliders, and lived in a tent.
\”promoted ecology then he\’d live in a house like this:\”
How do you know what kind of house Al Gore lives in? All you know of his house is the amount of his power bill. And you are making assumptions based solely on that?
\”scolding everyone on their excessive energy usage\”
Soclding? When? Where? I DARE you to provide me such an example of scolding. Saying the earth is in trouble and this is how you can help is not scolding as much as you lie to yourself and wish it were so.

“The point is that these investments are being trumped as doing enough to offset typical (or excessive) carbon consumption by other individuals. I’m sorry, we’re not convinced, we’re just supposed to take Al Gore’s word. You wouldn’t if you were on the other side of the debate, so don’t expect us to.
And if (as I strongly suspect) the balance sheets really aren’t balancing with regard to carbon impact, don’t people concerned about the impact of CO2 really want to know this information? Because if that’s the case, then the we’re all just digging ourselves deeper in the hole, maybe at a slightly slower rate.”
That’s fine. Don’t trust Al Gore. He’s just bringing the argument to the table again, after years of environmentalism being turned into a dirty word.
Al Gore’s initatives might be flawed, they might even be completely wrong. But no one seemed interested in even talking about CO2 emitions two years ago. So, by all means, bring the issue up and let’s hash out a solution to the problem.
Too often, the response has been “It’s not important” and that’s done more damage than anything else so far.

Riehl World investigates Al Gore’s company Generation Investment Management (GIM). With no surprise he finds it poised to do a little climate-war profiteering for Gore and his associates. (Riehl World)…

“So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004?”
Uh, the scientific consensus on AGW has been around longer than that. Read the IPCC TAR, 2001. Nice try, though.
GIM does not sell carbon offsets to the public, but they offset the carbon footprints of all thier employees including Gore’s. There’s a hydro project in Bolivia nad Solar projects in India and Sri Lanka. There are plenty of places for the “average joe” to buy carbon offsets, like Terrapass.
So you guys think it’s unfair that rich people get to invest and poor people don’t? Or is this selective outrage? Again.

Two questions for all the defenders of Al Gore’s behaviors as they currently stand:
1. If it was demonstrated that, in the aggregate, the activities that are being incentivized by the current market in carbon offsets had negligible impact on the amount of anthropogenic CO2 being released into the atmosphere, would you want to
a. do everything you could to correct that situation, or
b. would you not really care that much?
2. (OK, I know this one is reeely hypothetical for Global warming true believers, but humor me): If it becomes evident that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignifcant factor on mean global temperatures, will you feel
a. incredibily relieved
b. disappointed
c. really wouldn’t care one way or the other
Just curious.

Well I agree with the lefties about one thing. W must be a dumb ass. Why go to all the expense to practice energy conservation when you can just set up a company and mint yourself a little certificate that says you are Carbon Neutral. In triplicate. With goldleaf and serrated edge. For this bit of wisdom we have Al Gore to thank.

mjy good job with the childish name calling – you’re beginning to win me over
i want to drive a rechargable electric vehicle and don’t want to create any co2 to power it jackass
i am not anti science a creationist or a flat earther, i am a pro clean sustainable safe no co2 anywhere in the equation nuclear power advocate
why is al gore being immoral?
and i guess you missed bushs statement today about how the conditions at the bureaucratic branch of walter reed are unacceptable, and must be changed along with investigating all the other va hospitals across the country so conditions there if unacceptable can be changed as well
why are you only interestedin walter reed, could it be you don’t know any better because you haven’t received your talking points yet?
you sound like someones sock puppet, your posts look familiar for some reason

Al Gore has to be destroyed because the wingnuts cannot stand the idea that you can be ‘carbon neutral’ and not live in a mud hut without electricity, as they say everyone will have to in order to lower carbon emissions.
They also can’t abide the idea of any liberal, tree hugger, environmentalist, believer in global warming being able to make money without destroying the the environment.
Lastly, none of these dopes know what a hedge fund is anyway, probably some quasi commie plot, doncha know.
And, besides, its cold today, so global warming doesn’t exist.

“Can anyone tell me what AFLAC (the duck in TV ads), Staples (office supplies), UBS (finacial services), and Sysco (canned foods) have to do with carbon credits?”
I thought the SYSCO entry was pretty curious myself. I live in a remote town where the Sysco truck comes in from long distances each week, hauling mostly non-organic, pre-packaged foods and produce to restaurants and quick-stops that are too lazy to develop local or regional sources. Kind of like “Wal-Mart on wheels”. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but yeah, how exactly are the carbon offsets being generated here? There may be a real explanation – maybe they’re switching to bio-diesel for their fleet or something similar. Let’s hear about it.
And Becton Dickinson I also found as to be interesting. I worked there for eight years. They’re a great company, though I never heard a word about reducing energy usage from them. OK, so it’s been awhile, I checked their most recent annual report, which I still get as a shareholder. They are touting themselves as one of Business Ethics “100 best corporate citizens”. From what I can see, their good boy scout credits are coming from their efforts to alleviate suffering through donations of medical products through UNICEF efforts and such – they’re a healthcare products company (catheters, needles, diagnostic products, etc.)
This is excellent and should be widely recognized and commended. And I salute Al Gore’s investments in such a fine company. But what does this have to do with reducing atmospheric CO2?
Can everyone agree on what the precise definition of a carbon offset is, given this information? Because the definition “I say I’m doing enough good deeds to compensate” doesn’t wash. Maybe if we start there, we can work toward getting on the same page.
At least if reducing CO2 quantities is in fact the real issue at hand.

“They also can’t abide the idea of any liberal, tree hugger, environmentalist, believer in global warming being able to make money without destroying the the environment”
no, i can’t abide one of the loudest proponents who claims manmade co2 emissions are causing global warming and leading to a moral, not political problem is buying their way out of it rather than reducing the amount produced, or reducing the amount of energy they consume
in his own words al is immoral

Iftheshoefits
Stop with the rational behavior already! If Al says he is Carbon Neutral and says he has a certificate that says so ( no matter that the printing press is in his six car garage ), who are we to question it? After all you can read above just like I did, what’s important is that he is “bringing the question to the table again.” Not that he is a pompous ass who is quite hypocritical!
Why would you want to know answer to question like “how” and ” who did the calculations”? Or to put it another way cribbing from above “you must be a commie jackass dope etc etc.” And wait for it a Halliburton reference is sure to show up just about any second now.

He is reducing the amount of energy he consumes, he has released information on exactly how. In addition to taking steps to reduce the actual amount of energy he consumes, he also has taken steps to ‘offset’ his energy by other means including carbon trading. In effect, he’s taken advantage of the solutions that currently exist, short of living in a mud hut and traveling around the globe by rickshaw and sail boat.
It is typical and typically repulsive that the wingnuts would compare war profiteering to investment in green companies and technologies.
It is the wingnuts who believe that liberal and making money are incompatible, thus, anyone who is rich and liberal must, by definition, be hypocritical.
The idea that any kind of positive solutions to global warming that could actually make money rather than destroy the entire American and world economy as the wingnuts complain, can’t be allowed. It runs contrary to all wingnut philosophy.
Those who believe in global warming want to destroy our economy, take away our cars, electricity and our houses…
Al Gore living in a masion, making money off of green investments and STILL living a carbon neutral life HAS TO BE A LIE.
Otherwise, the whole global warming denier fear monger line of reasoning falls apart.

\”why are you only interestedin walter reed\”
I\’m not. Neither are \’the left\’ or liberals only interested in Walter Reed. Or the troops or our Vets.
It was liberals that waved their arms to bring attention to the lack of uparmored HumVees.
It was liberals that caused a stink about the lack of body armor.
It was liberals that payed attention to the cuts in the V.A.
Liberals are protesting the overuse of our National Guard and their lack of readiness.
Liberals are giving the Walter Reed story the play it deserves.
It is conservatives that throw the troops into battle to show how big their dicks are. It\’s conservatives that attack the troop who dared mention the lack of armor for his Humvee. It\’s conservatives who defend the cuts to the V.A. as not being cuts, but a reduction in the increases. It\’s conservatives who refuse to extend debt protection to our soldiers fighting abroad. It\’s conservatives who don\’t give a single solitary fuck about wounded soldiers sleeping in their own urine until it\’s exposed by a liberal reporter. Supporting the troops for you means using them willy nilly and sticking a faded Chinese magnetic yellow ribbon on your car and tattered American flag out your window.
Al Gore\’s big house and Barack Obama\’s slave owning ancestors are all the rage in the Wingnutosphere. If the right cared about the troops, why isn\’t this story #1 on Instapundit, or Riehl World View or FreeRepublic. Dan Riehl, and charles, and Hard Right, and the rest of you that pledge fealty to the boy king ignore stories like Walter Reed, or insufficient body armor, or ill equipped humvees until you can\’t escape it. I had to mention the scandal in every one of my posts before one of you troop haters dared mention it. And when you did, it was to attack me…for bringing it up.

Al Gore living in a masion, making money off of green investments and STILL living a carbon neutral life HAS TO BE A LIE.
you heard it here first folks, using more energy than any normal person could and living a life of conspicuous consumption is a carbon neutral lifestyle, if you can afford to buy your way out of it that is
why is algore so immoral?

Kreider said that context includes the efforts the Gores have made to use renewable energy sources and to conserve energy, including the following:
— Taking part in TVA’s “Green Power Switch” program, which means that power coming into their home is through solar, wind and renewable energy. That makes their electric bill more expensive, Kreider noted.
— Upgrading their home to reduce their energy consumption through energy efficient windows and appliances. Also having solar panels installed.
— Driving hybrid vehicles.
— Purchasing “offsets” to counteract their “overall carbon footprint,” which means the Gores consider all of the pollution they emit through their numerous activities, both at home and traveling, and then make financial contributions to renewable power projects elsewhere.
Kreider said Gore signed up for the “Green Power Switch” program last year, but she could not immediately say exactly when.

Al Gore got most of his wealth from his Dad. He is a trust fund baby who never had a real job and has been in politics for generations and now has a lifetime pension for his Congressional and V?P service. The wealth came from several sources but one of the most significant is the zinc mines in Carthage. Zinc strip mining is a pretty dirty enterprise but I guess if its the Goracle, you must worship at his altar.
Lots of hedge funds make money, some dont. Since this one seems to be quite miserly with information, there just might be some reason to remain skeptical about (1) whether he is making anything out of this beyond a salary (2) whether the company is making a profit even and (3) exactly how are the carbon offsets being created and who is doing the calculations. It aint even kosher until the Rabbi blesses it in other words.

Do the defenders of carbon offsets in their present form realize that there has been a global capacity crunch for solar panels for over the last two years? I have a hard time getting solar panels in the configurations that I want, at decent prices anymore. This is currently the biggest limitation to efforts in limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2 from solar-generated replacement. Every government subsidy that comes on line at present (and there are quite a few of them, the republican congress passed a big one two years ago) simply increases the demand for solar panels, thereby raising prices even more. Solar panel prices have increased 25-30% over the past couple years.
I would think that this would be an incredible investment opportunity for carbon trading companies, to invest in the very capital-intensive start-up monies needed to bring silicon processing facilities on line. But it is extremely risky, that is, you can easily lose your entire investment. A lot more bottom-line effective than planting trees, though, I would think.
Can anyone tell me if any of these carbon offset trading companies are funding raw solar silicon or solar panel startups? Because from what I see, most of that investment is coming from large Pacific-rim conglomerates such as Sharp and Honda. But there are US-based players and startups (Nanosolar, Evergreen, etc.) Is any carbon offset money going into those?

You people are pathetic.
One would think, given the conservative belief that the ‘free market’ solves everything and unfettered capitalism has been a gift to humanity that you would be applauding the idea of finding ways to make money without further damaging the enviroment. Wouldn’t a green hedge fund be exactly the kind of response a true conservative would come up with?
But, no.
Instead, you attack Al Gore for being rich, then for not making his own money, then for being on board an investment vehicle designed to profit and support green companies…
Who are the hypocrites in this story?

\”you heard it here first folks, using more energy than any normal person could\”
Yes, because former Vice President – Senator – Nobel Prize nominee – large multiple business owner – TV producer – High Demand Speaker is just like a \’normal\’ person. Normal people have to attend conferences in Asia and have secret service details. Would you please stop dishonestly comparing Al Gore\’s energy use to \”normal\” persons?
\”i am in awe of your prowess\”
The wounded Iraq vets sleeping in their own urine thank you for your cleverness in not giving a shit.

i’m attacking algore for being this centurys savoranolla
if co2 is causing global warming the most sensible way of dealing with the problem is to reduce its production
why isn’t algore advocating clean greenhouse friendly nuclear energy?

\”you heard it here first folks, using more energy than any normal person could\”
Yes, because former Vice President – Senator – Nobel Prize nominee – large multiple business owner – TV producer – High Demand Speaker is just like a \’normal\’ person. Normal people have to attend conferences in Asia and have secret service details. Would you please stop dishonestly comparing Al Gore\’s energy use to \”normal\” persons?
\”i am in awe of your prowess\”
The wounded Iraq vets sleeping in their own urine thank you for your cleverness in not giving a shit.

just to be sure you don’t miss this
“The wounded Iraq vets sleeping in their own urine thank you for your cleverness in not giving a shit.”
you have stepped way out over the line here son
go fuck yourself, you foul piece of shit

Al Gore isn’t advocating nuclear energy because as the solution to global warming because he doesn’t think enough countries will ever build enough nuclear reactors to get the job done.
Not to mention the radioactive waste that has to be burried in the mountains or dropped in the ocean might, ya know, have unintended consequences down the road.

On the other issue,
The wingnuts appear to support the troops only in the abstract, in that they support the troops going to war, winning the war and they support whatever means the troops may resort to..torture, murder, rape, etc. to get the job done.
The wingnuts generally appear uninterested in the details about how the troops might come to win any war…their recruitment, training, resources in the field, salaries, mental health, medical care or even the long term harm that turning a blind eye to rape, murder and torture might do to the ‘troops’ down the road are not big items in the wingnut world.
They appear only to care about the ‘the troops’ in so much as they are a symbol of their patriotism and desire and love for war. The actual people who comprise ‘the troops’ are uninteresting to them.

“One would think, given the conservative belief that the ‘free market’ solves everything and unfettered capitalism has been a gift to humanity that you would be applauding the idea of finding ways to make money without further damaging the enviroment. ”
Strawmen and hyperbole aside, you’re correct. The whole point of the post (and the discussion, I had hoped) is to question whether Al Gore’s particular investments were having the carbon neutral effects that he claims. This is al the more curious especially when considering that he’s channelling them through companies he owns, meaning that the more alarmism he can generate, the more potential money he makes.
Since he’s leading the global charge here, if Al Gore’s investments are not at all effective in reducing CO2, and if in fact the offsets are merely providing a false sense of cover for people to consume more fossil-based energy, then the net effect is not what we want.
Again, this is only true if the real desire here is to reduce the amount of anthropogenic CO2 dumped into the atmosphere.

Excuse me for interrupting, but does anyone have a laser printer? Reason I ask is I keep getting this damn printer ink on my hands cuz the inkjet printer does not dry quick enough and I keep smearing my Neutral footprint certificates. If you would be willing to donate your laser printer to the cause, we will add it to the substantial assets ( uhumm ) of my Sub S corp and we will start calling it henceforth a “hedge fund”. Throw some green Earth mumbo jumbo too. Now we dont talk about the assets or anything else of this fund so mums the word. You will become a officer and one of the bennies of the job is you get Neutral Footprint certificates for life. Now any salry will be offset by the cost to you for these certificates but hey try buying some from GIM and see where that leads you when they laugh and then hang up. Impress your moonbat friends, be the first on your block and step right up.

yyy look up pellet bed nuclear reactor
mjy – you would never in a million years have the balls to say that to my face
you have anonymously embarassed yourself in public
that is one of the foulest things i have ever seen posted here
you should be ashamed, but only someone with no shame could be capable of saying such a thing
i was only snarking, but you are obviously a very sick person
our dialogue is over

Hey guys (both on the right and left):
We’re trying to have an energy discussion here. If you want to go on about Iraq, there must be at least 10,000 other active posts somewhere out on the tubes, where you can have at it.

So, you think that Al Gore doesn’t really believe or care about global warming, it’s all a sham to make money, is that what you are saying?
The man who spent his life in public service, living off of his family money, all of a sudden decides he wants to make his own millions and is going to use fake global warming to do it?
You have got to be kidding me. Sadly, I’m sure you are not kidding me.
Do you also believe the world is 6,000 years old and global warming doesnt’ matter because when Jesus comes for the faithful it will be a moot point?

The question is pretty simple.
Is it your belief that Al Gore does not believe that global warming is a problem that is exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels, but is instead cynically exploiting the global warming ‘lie’ in order to make money as your previous post seems to indicate?
yes or no

“So, you think that Al Gore doesn’t really believe or care about global warming”
what year was the kyoto treaty first brought up in congess?
why wasn’t it passed?
why did that years administration opt out?

There was no dialogue.
I was wondering why no right wing blogs are showing outrage over what happened at Walter Reed? Just like the right showed no real concern over the lack of body armor, medical care, debt relief, and mental health care of our fighting men and women in Iraq.
I seemed to have hit a bullseye. You got caught charles. I am seriously concerned about what\’s going on in Walter Reed and you want to play some snark game. Your guilt is showing. Where\’s the concern over the troops sleeping in their own urine, troop lover? Why aren\’t you mad at RWV or FreeRepublic or Assrocket for ignoring this story? Why get mad at me for noticing how you would rather not talk about it?
To quote the right wing: \”Can we question your patriotism now?\”

There is no basis for that belief, since he’s already provided ample proof of his own personal actions to reduce his carbon use and has provided a financial vehicle that offsets his use.
Again, the idea of carbon trading is a much more conservative idea than a liberal one. The typical liberal idea would be to force wholsesale changes/reductions, etc. Carbon trading is a near term pragmatic solution that could reduce the OVERALL CO2 emissions. The planet doesn’t really care who is burning fossil fuels, the US, the Chinese or the Jamaicans. If carbon trading enables a global reduction, for what reaosn would anyone be against this?

\”If you want to go on about Iraq\”
I want to go on about Walter Reed instead of Al Gore\’s big house. But I can;t seem to find too many posts about Walter Reed anywhere on the right wing internets but a million posts about Al Gore\’s big house. Why is that?

\”The planet doesn\’t really care who is burning fossil fuels\”
Rush Limbaugh played an audio clip of Chuck Heston reading from Jurassic Park about life finding a way. He was deriding liberals for being arrogant that they think they could change how the world works over millions of years.
I know life finds a way, but I\’d like to keep this planet as hospitable as possible for humankind as long as possible.
J

It’s my opinion the global warming deniers are going to be viewed by history the same way as the witch burners and the people who imprisoned Gallileo for being a heretic.
Unfortunately, by the time global warming could ever conclusively be proven to be caused/accelerated by fossil fuels these nut jobs will be long dead, my best understanding from the wingnuts is that we would need to see several hundred years of ongoing warming for them to even consider the idea that it was manmade, by that time it will be Waterworld.

already provided ample proof of his own personal actions to reduce his carbon use and has provided a financial vehicle that offsets his use.
Where?
And ample to you? Grudgingly and still negligible to none existent to most fair observers would probably be a reasoned retort.
If we all offset our use with pretty certificates exactly how does co2 get reduced one micron? Its amazing how that small fact seems to escape you.

“So, you think that Al Gore doesn’t really believe or care about global warming, it’s all a sham to make money, is that what you are saying?”
You know, raising up strawmen and then burning them isn’t helping our CO2 problem…
I know that there are are lots of people who believe it’s all a sham. As an environmentalist, that is an ongoing source of discouragement for me. Most of us know that human actions are usually based upon a complex mix of motives.
I think Al Gore believes what he says. Not enough to have triggered any real government policy while we was VP, but hey, he was VP, not the pres, and the pres seemed a bit pre-occupied much of the time. Did I mention that the Republican congress passed the residential renewable energy credits legislation, and GW signed it?
I also think that Al Gore is waaaay ahead of the actual science. And that will ultimately hurt the cause more than it will help. And that maybe his other political convictions, having nothing in and of themselves to do with Global Warming, might have a wee bit to do with his motiviations.
I personally don’t think Gore’s self-owned carbon trading thing is necessarily all that bad. I do suspect though, that it’s likely to have no effect relative to it’s primary claimed purpose, that is, offsetting atmosphereic CO2 caused by his fossil fuel consumption.
As far as the “appearance of impropriety” angle, the whole scheme sure was set up in a such a manner that indicates that he never expected any of the internals to get the kind of significant airing in public that it’s now getting.
The problem with getting serious about actually reducing energy consumption (as opposed to trading offsets) is that it’s a bitch, no matter who you are.

“The whole point of the post (and the discussion, I had hoped) is to question whether Al Gore’s particular investments were having the carbon neutral effects that he claims.”
Once again, it’s not the investments Gore is making–and potentially profiting from–that offset carbon emissions. It’s the projects GIM funds. In Bulgaria (I think I mistakenly said Bolivia before), India and Sri Lanka. GIM offsets the CO2 emissions of all of their employees, including Gore, and the CO2 emissions of their offices and travel.
Gore and GIM’s customers are investing in green technologies, which encoourages these technologies. Anyone can invest in them if they want. Go ahead, get rich and help the environment.

“The whole point of the post (and the discussion, I had hoped) is to question whether Al Gore’s particular investments were having the carbon neutral effects that he claims.”
Once again, it’s not the investments Gore is making–and potentially profiting from–that offset carbon emissions. It’s the projects GIM funds. In Bulgaria (I think I mistakenly said Bolivia before), India and Sri Lanka. GIM offsets the CO2 emissions of all of their employees, including Gore, and the CO2 emissions of their offices and travel.
Gore and GIM’s customers are investing in green technologies, which encoourages these technologies. Anyone can invest in them if they want. Go ahead, get rich and help the environment.

Well I keep thinking of another comedian, Dana Carvey. And in his now famous role as the Church Lady he played a bit of a skeptic. So excuse me the luxury of thinking of her response after drilling down deep in Gore’s tale and hearing that he is “installing” ( not has had installed ) solar panels. (As a point of some pride I can say Hell I have had a solar panel on my house since 1998). And some more grilling and it comes out that the certificates are produced by a company he owns, is an officer in and draws a salary from. No explanation of how or how much and how its calculated. As the church lady might say ” How conveeeeenient!”

Al Gore-modern snake oil salesman. If the prdictions from people like him had come true, then over the last 40 years there would have been global freezing, worldwide starvation (several times), and overpoplation. Wake up lefties, you’re being manipulated-AGAIN.

I’m curious, even if Al Gore IS a hypocrite does that mean global warming is a lie?
The saddest irony of the wingnut left is they are willing to go to war over and over again based on faulty evidence, made up evidence or secret evidence, yet they unfailingly refuse to believe the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific bodies that have studied climate change.
I guess if George Bush told them the Islamofascist Terrorists were behind global warming they would be lining up for hybrid cars and building their own mud huts by the millions.

Boris,
You may well be correct. I haven’t seen enough hard data about GIM to know one way or the other.
And I’m willing to cut Al Gore a lot of slack, if he’d just back off his high horse a bit, and show a little more genuine graciousness to those who aren’t completely with the program.
Al Gore is the single person on the planet most responsible for hyping up the apocalyptic consequences of our current energy consumption practices. If that is truly the case, then trading credits ain’t gonna cut it. At all.
Significantly reducing one’s personal energy consumption, as opposed to buying off the problem, is really expensive. Typically it means building an entirely new custom designed passive solar home, or radically refurbishing your present one. (Heating/cooling loads account for about 80% of the typical residential carbon footprint, solar panels only address about 20% of the problem.) A lot of homes can’t be refurbished, you just have to move and start over. Not a very sustainable concept, but as I said, real energy reduction is a bitch.
Then for electricity, you have to invest in about $30-50K of solar panels and inverters. Another 3-5K in solar hot water panels for domestic hot water, $10-12K in addition if you want to provide solar-based radiant in-floor heat. And these costs are for an average sized home.
And then there’s transportation. Hybrids are great, but they only affect things at the margin. To really make a difference, you have to radically re-think your use of automobiles.
If we’re at the crisis point that Gore says we are, then most of us need to be looking at taking all or many of the above steps. Most people can’t afford it. Al Gore and Hollywood entertainers are some of the few that can. Why hasn’t he pursued these things aggressively already? Other people who really take him at his word are.
Am I holding him up to a high standard? You bet I am. He asked for it, by virtue of the position he’s put himself in. Raising awareness is great, Al. Now lead the charge like a true leader would.

Just because you missed, reading Hardy Boy novels I assume, does not mean it did not happen. It was all the rage for years. We were heading for another ice age, and of course man was responsible. Then there was the hole in the ozone fracas and we banned CFCs guess what no change in the hole even with a world wide ban. The hits just keep on coming.
Could we please wait until we have a computer model that can accurately even model our climate. And if we are in the closest to the Sun part of the Earth orbit wobble, what portion of .7 degree warm up that we have experienced only recently due to the wobble. If we dont know we should tell people.
The hardest part is even if you accept that man is totally responsible ( I dont and could if I saw some convincing evidence ), you still need an accurate prediction of what the consequences will be.
Finally is what should be a response and what will that cost and what results will it bring both on the atmosphere and our way of life. there is nothing remotely near repsonsive to this last one.

Sorry, that’s pure crap.
If we can’t do 100% of what is needed then we shouldn’t bother with doing 20% or 30%, how ridiculous.
The fact is that if global warming is as bad as scientists say it is, we’re already screwed unless someone invents an entirely new, renewable, non polluting energy source in the next 20 years.
Anything is better than nothing at this point.
The idea that everyone needs a new house is just more right wing fear mongering. What about we start with some energy efficent light bulbs. Then, we could move on either to stricter standards for household appliances or tax credits for buying the top of the line energy efficent models. We could do the same for cars.

iftheshowfits,
I agree I’d like to see Gore do more–but then we don; treally know the details of his house, how many people work there, etc, etc.I think he should publically give up private jets as well, because that’s a tone of emissions right there.
But your other points seem to suggets we have to do everything at once. WHile global warming is lightning fast in geologic terms, it’s slow enought hat we can move in stages, the first of whihc should be to reduce waste. CF lightbulbs save money now, so except for lacking the initial purchase price, there’s no excuse not to have them.
There are many other ideas–carbon sequestration and other forms of energy that will help reduce CO2 enough that we can handle the rest of the warming via adaptation. But adaptation to a much warmer world has a cost of its own–a high and unknown one at that.

I don’t think
You should stop right there. Peopel did say the hole would close back up. And the hole has gotten bigger this year without any CFCs. How did that happen? You dont know do you? Neither does anyone else. Point is that we need to better info that we have, or we can make some more stupid decisions.

PS
Just as I thought you are full of sh*t about the ozone. The ozone hole has gotten bigger because of unregulated CFC in Asia, primarily from air conditioners.
So, um, I guess that means that the scientists have an explanation afterall that doens’t include ‘oops, we were wrong about the relationship between the hole in the ozone and CFC’s…
Caught lying again, what a surprise.

Here is a quote from an old article.
In 1989 world leaders met in Montreal, Canada, and agreed to reduce CFC production. The treaty is known as the Montreal Protocol. It worked! Scientists now are finding fewer CFCs in the stratosphere, and they are optimistic that the hole in the ozone layer might disappear in the next few decades.
Yet 2006 the hole was the largest ever recorded. Now who is full of it?

The ozone hole has gotten bigger because of unregulated CFC in Asia, primarily from air conditioners.
—————————-
What part of that did you not understand?
Just like a right winger, when called on something, never admit error, compound your error by further attempting to mislead your audience.

A recent technical study by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Program found that
the so-called ozone “hole” over Antarctica — actually an area of unusually low ozone concentrations — was dissipating more slowly than expected.
Scientists mostly blame chlorofluorocarbons, a chemical used in an early form of refrigerant that they now realize was released into the atmosphere in larger quantities than forecast. As a result, the international agencies now say that injury to the Earth’s ozone layer could take a quarter of a century longer to heal than previously expected.
The fastest-growing offending gas that scientists say can be better managed is HCFC-22. Nearly 200 diplomats will gather in Montreal in September to determine how to speed up the timetable for the elimination of certain gases that threaten the ozone layer, in particular how to manage HCFC-22. A deadline for proposals is March 15.
At a meeting in Washington last week, Bush administration officials said for the first time that they were considering four possible proposals for a faster phaseout.
Industrial countries currently must phase out production of HCFC-22 by 2020 and are ahead of schedule, with the United States banning domestic production in 2010. The Environmental Protection Agency is studying whether to ban imports of the gas and the sale of new products using the gas by then as well.
By contrast, the Montreal Protocol, which governs the phaseout of ozone- depleting chemicals, allows developing countries to continue using HCFC-22 through 2040.
China in particular is stepping up exports to the United States of air conditioners using the chemical, often labeled as R22, especially after the European Union finished phasing out the production and import of such air conditioners in 2004.
Pound for pound, HCFC-22 is only 5 percent as harmful to the ozone layer as the chlorofluorocarbons it replaced. But it still inflicts damage, especially when emitted in enormous quantities by China, now the world’s dominant producer of window air conditioners, and by India, a fast-growing market and manufacturer.
The latest estimate from technical experts is that the chemical’s output in developing countries is rising 20 to 35 percent each year and could continue at that pace for years: slightly over 2 percent of Indian households currently have air conditioners, according to LG of South Korea.
————————————–
In other words, scientists UNDERPLAYED the problem….just like they are doing now with global warming.

I have never seen a bigger load of crap than Kevin’s post. It’s time for a fisking:
“Non-indexed investment funds are regarded by the SEC as inherently risky investments.”
WRONG. There are hundreds of non-indexed investment companies out there. You’re probably referring to hedge funds, but even the SEC doesn’t regard them as “inherently risky,” only that the qualified purchasers/accredited investors who invest in those funds do not need the protection of the securities laws. The funds themselves could be relatively bland.
“Gore’s fund targets sophisticated investors – as almost every clever-pants speculative investment fund does. This is industry standard practice.”
Hedge funds are not permitted to market to the public. If they did, they’d have to register under the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Investment Company Act of 1940. Hedge funds can, however, market to accredited investors if a 3(c)(1) fund, or qualified purchasers if a 3(c)(7) fund. Your limited knowledge on these issues exposes your greater ignorance on the hypocrisy of Gore, which I’ll discuss shortly.
“As for the purpose of the fund, it brings market leverage to bear on the environmental crisis by supporting and investing in the long-term growth of businesses with sustainable business practices. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to invest in their fund; you just have to believe in their ability to find successful investment targets.”
This is technically correct. But the investment targets are successful with the help of Al Gore’s scaremongering about global warming. AL GORE is creating the “environmental crisis.” He has a FINANCIAL STAKE in scaring as many people as possible into purchasing carbon credits, or soliciting from so-called eco-friendly companies like Whole Foods. Hence, Al Gore’s gospel about global warming is really just a sales ploy.
“If you think they can make money, you have an incentive to invest with them – which means that their fund inherently puts non-environmentalists’ money to work supporting environmentally sound business, out of purely economic motives alone.”
Purely economic motives alone. Let that sink in. Gore is doing this for purely economic reasons alone. His hyping of global warming is a market ploy to get people to buy the products from “eco-friendly” companies that his hedge fund invests in. If they do well from all his scaremongering, he’ll make a big profit from his investments.
“Isn’t that the kind of “market solution” you’re supposed to support?”
Not when there’s nothing worth buying. He’s basically making money off of people’s fears. We’re supposed to shop at Whole Foods, spending double on products like chicken and beef, only because Al Gore tells us to? And he tells us because he has large investments in Whole Foods. So the more people who spend exhorbitant amounts at Whole Foods, the more money Al Gore makes. Don’t you see something wrong with this? He’s a huckster. That might be capitalism, but it’s capitalism of the robber-barron type.
“GIM is an ordinary “growth” investment fund with a particular investment strategy. It was founded for the purpose of supporting sustainable businesses, but it operates the same way all such funds do, each of which has their own pet investment theories.”
The investment strategy only works if the investment targets make money, and those targets are promoted by Al Gore.
“Gore’s not making money off your carbon offsets, if you even use any, and if he did, again, isn’t that the sort of thing you’re supposed to support?”
Of course he is. People buy carbon offsets. Which companies are the buying them from? The ones Gore’s fund invests in. He makes money every time someone buys a carbon offset from a company his hedge fund owns. Carbon offsets are like cash flows into those companies. They’re selling things like land tracts of trees to morons who pay money for those trees to suck up carbon dioxide. It’s a cash cow. Gore’s fund makes a nice profit from all of that.
“By investing in the company that trades carbon offsets, he creates a market for such trades, and those trades support renewable energy resources.”
If you think it’s a good idea to pay a company to NOT cut down trees, fine. But it’s a cash cow. And Gore is trying to convince lots of people to do that. He has an inherent financial stake in the matter. That’s the point.
“That’s the kind of investment that brings social goods as well as profits”
Profits to Gore, of course. There’s no profit to anyone else to NOT cut down a tree.
“but if the investment is attractive from the profit perspective alone, isn’t that an even better and more likely way to achieve the social benefit?”
It’s an investment in ether. It creates NOTHING. Convincing people to buy carbon credits is like convincing people to pay you to drink less water. You get a lot of money for something that is a complete fraud. It’s a great thing for YOU, if you get the money. But it does nothing for society. Same thing with buying organic food. It’s just a complete waste of money, except for the companies marketing organic food.
“And as others have pointed out, there’s nothing hypocritical or unusal about Gore’s energy usage; what’s different is that he tries to do something about it. What you can’t seem to stand is that he does it in a way that uses the market for good ends.”
It’s very hyporcitcal. Gore knows better. He’s “buying” carbon offsets in companies that he owns. It’s like transferring 5 dollars from his left pocket to his right pocket. But all the other people he tells to buy carbon credits are basically giving him free money.
“Really, you’re just bent out of shape because Gore has money and is playing your game to his own purposes – so far, successfully.”
I’m not happy to see a huckster. Magic shows are entertainment, not serious investments.

Rev. Gore is just following the advice of L. Ron Hubbard who once said ‘If you want to get rich, you start a religion.’.
And the same suckers who fell for Hubbard are now falling over themselves for Rev. Gore.
There are some differences, though.
The Scientologists are rather low key about their religion, except for that whack job Tom Cruise. And Scientology doesn’t have a high hypocrisy factor built in, either. Rev. Gore and his high Hollywood clergy obviously do not think there really is a “crisis” or they would actually practice what they preach. And practicing what you preach is not screwing in a couple florescent light bulbs at your mansions while air conditioning your stables or parking a Prius in your driveway in front of your garage full of SUV’s and sports cars. The Pious in the driveway is their version of a plastic Pink Flamingo in the yard.
The scary thing in all of this is that the cultists in Rev. Gore’s Church of Gaia are increasingly reminding me of the followers of another cult.
The People’s Temple.
All one has to do is read some of the posts made by them here. If you are unfortunate enough to have a friend or relative who has fallen for this cult you know this one first hand. They have all the classic behaviour changes that occur in people who fallen into a cult.
Rev. Gore’s Church of Gaia and it’s followers beginning to exhibit all the warning signs of a destructive cult like the People’s Temple, too.
1. A destructive cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of its members’ behavior. CHECK.
2. A destructive cult tends to have an ethical double standard. CHECK.
3. A destructive cult has only two basic purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising. CHECK.
4. A destructive cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. CHECK.
5. A destructive cult is authoritarian in its power structure. CHECK.
6. A destructive cult’s leader is a self-appointed messianic person claiming to have a special mission in life. CHECK.
7. A destructive cult’s leader centers the veneration of members upon himself or herself. CHECK.
8. A destructive cult’s leader tends to be determined, domineering, and charismatic. CHECK.
I wonder how long it will be before the Rev. Gore starts advocating that people should be killed in order to “save Gaia”?

“But your other points seem to suggets we have to do everything at once.”
No that’s not my point. We only have to do everything at once if the problem is as catastrophically bad as Al Gore seems to want us to believe. I’m sorry, we can’t have it both ways. Either the problem is an extreme crisis, a global catastrophe out there in our very near future, or it’s something much less severe. And I stand by what I said, if our situation is that grave, trading energy credits to a handful of companies trying to do the right thing won’t suffice. All it will probably do is very slightly reduce the rate of growth in US energy consumption, who knows if any at all worldwide. And that is an inconvenient truth that really sucks, I wish it were different.
I don’t happen to agree with Gore that things are that dire, at least not based on the information we have today. But it’s a complex puzzle, and reasonable people can come to different conclusions. Regardless, for a whole host of reasons (global warming being one of the weakest, IMO), everybody should do what they can to reduce consumption. That usually ends up meaning, not a whole heck of a lot without government coercion or really substantial subsidies.
And yeah, I’m a free market kind of guy, even though free markets are far from perfect. My prediction about future energy consumption is that the real reductions in fossil fuel consumption will probably come from
1. demand side, mostly through energy price increases, forcing changes in consumption patterns, and
2. supply side, by technological breakthroughs and advances, the timing of which are hard to predict.
And I’m guessing that all of today’s global warming excitements will pass because there isn’t enough substance there, although I could be wrong.

Since no one has so far convinced the US government that global warming is a serious problem that needs a global solution and Kyoto is dead in the water and China and India are gearing up for a fossel fuel burning party like the world hasn’t seen…what do you propose?
Do nothing until all the governments of the world are on board with a global plan?
I’m guessing that science is right this time on global warming and future generations are in for a world of hurt, and deservedly so.

and deservedly so.
Sometimes you make even less sense than at other times. This is surely one of those. How in th world would future generations ( ie the unborn ) deserve some “worlds of hurt” whatever that means? Can you just make stuff up out of thin air and convince yourself of your correctness.
Listen if Core is right Manhattan to going to be undewater. Seen a big exodus off Chief Manhattan’s former possession? Me either. Why is that, with all those Democrats there, so predisposed to the Al Gore message. Answer, cuz those folks know him best, and know just how full of it Al is. No other logical explanation.

What I would propose would depend upon what the biggest problem really is.
If it truly is radical global climate instability on the horizon, due to massive amounts of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, I have to reluctantly agree with those that say nuclear power is the primary answer, conservation 2nd, wind 3rd, solar probably 4th. I’m neither particularly pro or con as far as nuclear goes, there are lots of problems still unaddressed w/r/t waste disposal. It is the only solution that could massively reduce fossil consumption quickly because it could very readily be “dropped in” to the existing energy transmission and distribution infrastructure.
I don’t want to live within 50 miles of either a fossil or a nuke plant myself. But I’ll gladly live within 100 miles of a nuke plant instead of the coal plants we have now that muck up my air in the desert southwest, just to ship power to Las Vegas and CA.
And I’ll gladly live within 5-10 miles of wind farm, unlike some I know. If I wanted to score cheap political points I would say that nuclear is a solution that even John Kerry could get behind, as it would follow the lead of the French and it wouldn’t have to involve windmills of the coast of Nantucket, but I wouldn’t think of doing that.
If the problem really is that we’re running out of oil, well, the price mechanism will do its work, not without pain, but what choice do we have. Some subsidiies and taxes to amplify and speed up its effect probably wouldn’t hurt along the way. Again I think nuclear would play a big role, in large part because the younger generation isn’t spooked by nuke the way my generation is (the way my parent’s generation was spooked by hydrogen ’cause of the Hindenberg).
I think the problem really is that we’re starting again to muck up our air after a generation of steady improvement, due to coalstack emissions and too many automobiles in too concentrated an area. I voted with my feet and left the city. We should ratchet up the pollution standards again on all fronts, cleaning up the air further and resulting in small energy price increases which would only help decrease consumption. I don’t agree with conservatives and industry folk that say we can’t afford it. The economy wasn’t exactly screaming in the 70’s when all the pollution standards first got rolled out, and it’s done quite well since. Energy in inflation-adjusted prices costs about the same then as it does now. So yeah, we can afford if.
And let’s keep ratcheting up the incentives for real personal energy conservation (not trading so much, although it’s OK within the limits of what it can do), so that we don’t have to keep wasting the landscape with so much energy drilling, open pit coal mining and new transmission lines. And so we don’t need to add too many nukes.

Seen a big exodus off Chief Manhattan’s former possession?
=============
Are you really, honest to god this stupid?
Sea levels aren’t predicted to rise to the level of submerging Manhattan for many decades, perhaps not for a century.
LOL is this the best you numbnuts can do.
Manhattan is still full of people so global warming is a myth because they all ‘know’ Al Gore.
Dear God, you people make me embarrassed to be an American.

i think all needs a catchier name for his new venture. that GIM is downright boring. To help him out I have racked my brain for something description yet familiar and kinda catchy. Tell me what you think:
Greenfleece
Is that perfect or what.
For the record I have compact fluorescent spotlights in all outdoor lighting, 13 SEER air conditioners, computerized thermostats on every zone in the house, 60% solar screens on all western exposures, a solar panel and I recycle more than 50% in volume of my weekly trash output. And I have not bought one single credit from some trading company. I live the low footprint life a lot better than the high priest I am afraid.

YYY
I have refrained to this point from commenting on your juvenile and demeaning comments. You are the ignorant one and lots of people are laughing at you. I am the only one that will tell you. But take your bad attitude and insults and stick them where the sun dont shine. You are the poster boy for an ignorant yet arrogant liberal so smug in what they dont know. Truth problem would hurt if it could penetrate your dense skull.

Gary,
Lots of people are laughing at me? Really? The freaks and idiots here who troll Danny boy’s blog? Oh, boy I am mortified.
YOU are a liar. Period.
I called you out on your bullshit about the ozone, and you had nothing to say about it.
The best argument you can come up with on global warming is that people aren’t feeling Manhattan so it must be false, and you call me juvenile?
Your next best argument is that 40 years ago some scientists though the earth was cooling, so that today, 40 years later, with computer models and huge leaps in climate study technology, since they were wrong 40 years ago they must be wrong today.
Why don’t you go pray to the baby Jesus for the unborn, kay.

…I wonder how long it will be before the Rev. Gore starts advocating that people should be killed in order to “save Gaia”?…
He already has done in spirit.
He said that when it comes to global warming, there’s such a thing a ‘too-well balanced’ press.
Stifling freedom of speech is but one small step from killing the speaker.

You are an asshole period. Neither of us have accomplished much but after all of your insults, I just wanted you to know exactly how I felt. Why does an moronic asshole hang around a conservative site anyway? It cant be to share your wit and wisdom cuz frankly sir you have so little to spare.

Another LIE.
What he said was the press reports the global warming debate as ‘balanced’ when the scientific CONSENSUS is that global warming is occuring and in large part due to human activity.
In other words, when 99% of the world’s scientists agree on these points it is wrong to write articles that make it appear there is a 50/50 split of opinion.

It amuzes me to whip up conservative, jesus loving, muslim hating, torture loving, war mongering losers such as congregate here at Dan’s blog.
It’s also a good reality check, I need occasional reminders of just how crazy, untethered and immoral the ring wing nutters are.
You all never disappoint.

“China and India are gearing up for a fossel fuel burning party like the world hasn’t seen…”
Since both India and the PRC have significant coastal areas, it would appear Algore hasn’t convinced them eh?

Hmm, well the Chinese have yet to be convinced that killing baby girls is wrong, that torture is wrong, that trading in endangered species is wrong…..
Kind of a non issue, really, what the chinese think of global warming.

Do I think the earth is warming up? Yes. Do I think man caused it? Hell no.
Look lefties, everyone is for protecting the environment. However, we aren’t willing to cut our throats economically for highly questionable results as you are demanding. Gore AND Kerry had the chance to approve the Kyoto treaty and they DIDN’T. So them bashing Bush over it is blatantly hypocritical. On top of that the Euros and others who signed have hardly tried to meet the goals. Why? Because they aren’t achievable without destroying their economies!
Lastly, if the world is in such dire shape and Kyoto is SOOOOO needed, why do China and India get a pass? Because it’s BS. Period.

You couple of libs here crack me up. Obviously products of the Socialist agenda. I’m talking about the part where they take control of the schools, and get rid of teaching scientific method. You people are dangerous. You believe alien technology will solve global warming. You people believe in “consensus”. You don’t believe in experimentation. You believe in data manipulation. Einstein once said something like, “no number of people can prove me right, but it only takes one to prove me wrong.” You people have abandoned any precept of using facts. Only manipulation.
hts

More hyperbole and bullshit.
Cut our throats economically, destroy the economy.
Same old same old. It it was up to you nutters there wouldn’t be ANY environmental protections, since all environmental protections demand some degree of economic sacrifice. In order not to fish a species into extinction someone at some time has to reduce their fish count. In order to protect wetlands someone somwhere isn’t allowed to build a house or a development. Not using DDT hurt the DDT industry. It cost the auto industry money to upgrade emissions standards, as I remember, it was going to BREAK the industry, but of course it didn’t.

You people have abandoned any precept of using facts.
————————————————
Don’t you ever get tired of lying? The FACT is that the scientific community…based on their scientific methods, climate models and peer reviewed studies have concluded that global warming is occuring and it is due in large part to human activity.

Wait, Al Gore is using extreme amounts of energy – just in his home, mind you, forget the jet-setting – and he is buying carbon offsets from himself at a profit and the left still defends it?
WTF? Am I through the looking glass?

iftheshowfits,
“We only have to do everything at once if the problem is as catastrophically bad as Al Gore seems to want us to believe.”
Why do you think Gore is exagerating the science? The problem is bad, but you also don’t want–or need–to ruin any economies.
Interestingly if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions tomorrow we would likely see a short term increase in warming. This is because CO2 has an atmospheric life of 100 years, while aerosols (which provide a cooling effect) have a life of only ten days. There are all kinds of things to think about, but most scientists believe we need to begin acting seriously within the next ten years to mitigate future warming.

From the National Geographic, another take on global warming. The sun did it.
In 2005 data from NASAs Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide ice caps near Marss south pole had been dimin…

“Don’t you ever get tired of lying? The FACT is that the scientific community…based on their scientific methods, climate models and peer reviewed studies have concluded that global warming is occuring and it is due in large part to human activity.”http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/
Doug Hoyt has developed a scorecard to compare the major predictions of global warming models with actual observations. He gives each prediction a “yes-no-undetermined score.” So if the major models’ prediction is confirmed, the score at the beginning would be 1-0-0. So how do the models score when compared with the evidence? The final score is 1-27-4. That’s one confirmed prediction, 27 disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined.
Hoyt isn’t a newcomer to the debate. He’s published important work on sunspot observations over the past 4 centuries. He also coauthored a book called The Role of the Sun in Climate Change , published by some fringe outfit called “Oxford University Press.”http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

It was said of the Hawaiian missionaries that they came to do good and did very well indeed. It looks to me like the Goracle, along with many of his fellow believers, is emulating those missionaries. All cults tell their members…

Whatever Al Gore does, and however much he profits from peddling his influence in support of global warming, there’s two reasons why it’s OK.
1. He is a high ranking Party official and as such is better than everyone else.
2. There’s no controlling legal authority.

Sure Dan. Now go read my post again. And read that insightful comment of yours to which it was responding:
>>So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004?<<<
Way to deflect, eh? I guess you assume your readers are just as ill-informed as you.

Thomas
Save your bits and bites, these two or three morons are the choir right behind Rev Al. They think even if he is an energy glutton that its ok cuz he is putting the issue on the agenda. It would matter not one whit to them if he belched large plumes of acrid, soot-filled smoke into the air from every chimney and every tailpipe of his small fleet, Even all at the same time. Rev Al is speaking “truth to power”. If if its not really the truth but a gross exaggeration. And busily filling every pocket he can find with the moron’s guilty lib friends moo la.
Point out the global cooling New Ice Age dire predictions only a short time ago, they don’t remember( and wont Google to find out either, inconvenient I think). Point out how the theory on CFC making the ozone hole not seeming to match up with current reality, ie 2006 the largest ever and CFC s in the atmosphere to have peaked in about 99 or 2000 and have been declining since then, and they will tell you about China. Huh?
Since the only proffered “response” to Global Warming that I am aware of is the Kyoto Protocol, which exempts China and India, how does China being responsible for the enlarging Ozone Hole, bode for the success of Kyoto? Consistency in argument does not have much perceived benefit.
Watch for straw man argument, they are pretty good at these so that they can rhetorically tear the straw man down and declare themselves the winner of the debate! For example they will say ” what do want to do , NOTHING?” Of course no one has said do nothing, but it wont stop them.
Many here I am sure think there are enough other good reasons to reduce our energy dependence, and probably have done so in their own personal lives. I know I have and will continue to watch for other opportunities. That we don’t want to sign on to a Non consensus and throw the country into a recession seems quite logical to me. Especially since the last several warnings of impending calamity have not turned out exactly as billed. But then logic has not be an often used tool of the left now has it.

Read this off GIM website and see if you think they are even capable of genrerating a carbon offset for Al:
While we are still a small firm with only 23 employees, Generation is committed to reducing the energy use of operations, both direct and indirect. We do this by minimizing non-essential air travel and by managing our building operations (lighting, recycling, and procurement). We have also had conversations with suppliers about energy efficiency. For the remainder of our carbon footprint, we work with two offset providers (The Chicago Climate Exchange and the CarbonNeutral Company) to ensure our London and Washington D.C. offices are fully carbon neutral. In addition, Generation has sponsored a full energy efficiency audit for each employee’s residence, including suggestions for ways they can make home energy improvements.
Sounds like to me they are buying offsets themselves from two more companies and doing an energy audit only on employees houses. Anybody read it differently?

This reminds me of visits to the USSR back in the late 70’s and early 80’s where you would see huge lines of common people waiting to buy crappy SovBloc merchandise while the political elite had their own stores with western goods. Communism was right for the common people but never good enough for the Soviet Elite.
I’m still waiting for proof that any of these “offset” corporations actually own (or even have leases for 100+ years) the vast amounts of land required to plant these trees that offset Al Gore’s carbon footprints. How about proof that they’ve even planted any trees?

Buzzy –
Uh, are tree plantings on their own land the only offsets offered by carbon exchanges?
You can look at some of the links I posted earlier to see a pretty extensive description of the variety of offset projects most exchanges invest in. For instance, like many other consumer-oriented corporations, that uh, “not first-tier” corporation, TerraPass, invests in a diverse range of carbon reduction projects:http://www.terrapass.com/projects/index.html
And any reputable exchange will provide an audited verification of the company’s operations as well as the carbon-reduction impact of the projects in which it invests. For instance:http://www.terrapass.com/projects/verification.html

Gary,
Odd you mention the straw man argument as it seems to be your tactic of choice. For instance, the global cooling canard. You claim global warming is the same as global cooling. Now, did the National Academies of Science issue a statement warning of the threat of global cooling? Becasue they have for AGW. What about the American Geophysical Union? The EPA? The Royal Society, NOAA, AMS? All have issued statements in support of the AGW theory. None did so for global cooling. A publication in Newsweek is not a consensus.
What’s your problem with CFC’s as a catalyst for Ozone depletion? It’s basic Chemistry. 101 stuff–at least that’s where I learned it. Recovery (or non-recovery) of the Ozone hole is not expected to be statistically significant until 2024.
Thomas,
Are you not familiar with Hansen’s 1988 paper? Or perhaps the hindcasting that’s been done?

Talk about the biggest fraud in the history of frauds. This guy is good, really good. Not only is he perpetrating a hoax on the world with this global warming stuff, he is a hypocrite who doesn’t practice what he preaches. Not only that and perhaps e…

Canard ( ke nard ) N A false rumor, hoax
Well you can choose to put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and hmmm “la la la” if you wish. That does not make it any less truthful that the 70s were filled with stories of impending do to a new Ice Age.
And except for your now reliance on a appeal to authority I see not much else but the willing to deny what clearly happened.
As to CFCs, is it you deny that they peaked in the atmosphere around 99 and yet we still have the largest observed ozone hole 2006 or what? Does that not suggest to you that the certitude for which CFCs were the cause was a bit simplistic? After all if its “basic” chemistry then why are we now casting about for a further explanation? Is it a bit more complicated than all the experts led us to believe or what. Enlighten us. I am not expecting the hole to close or recover quickly so dont misunderstand me or mispresent me. Specifically why if CFCs have been declining from a 99 peak, that after almost a decade we have the largest hole ever observed.
Science and scientific method has a lot of theories. The difference between that an a scientific law are well known to any who knows the basics as you so derisesively put it.

Gary,
“As to CFCs, is it you deny that they peaked in the atmosphere around 99 and yet we still have the largest observed ozone hole 2006 or what?”
I don’t deny that at all.
“Does that not suggest to you that the certitude for which CFCs were the cause was a bit simplistic?”
Gary you have to read beyond the headlines:
“The temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones. The NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) provided analyses of satellite and balloon stratospheric temperature observations. The temperature readings from NOAA satellites and balloons during late-September 2006 showed the lower stratosphere at the rim of Antarctica was approximately nine degrees Fahrenheit colder than average.”
and
“As a result of this slow decline, the ozone hole is estimated to annually very slowly decrease in area by about 0.1 to 0.2 percent for the next five to 10 years. This slow decrease is masked by large year-to-year variations caused by Antarctic stratosphere weather fluctuations.”http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/1024/2/

“Carbon offset” is just another nonsensical leftie platitude soon to appear on a bumper sticker near you. It is way for rich liberals to buy absolution for their excessive lifestyles and deflect accusations of hypocrisy. The Goracle hasn’t done anything tangible to curb pollution, quite the opposite. You will never see any wind farms next to his little mansion on the hill. Nor will you ever see his Gulfstream jet run on batteries and bio-diesel.

Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes,
It was a bit of a trap and maybe I should be ashamed for setting one, but you did fall right in like I expected. Can you think of another argument that we have also been discussing which does not seem to reconcile very well, well oh ok its in direct conflict. Hint World. Second hint heating up. third and last hin Colder than average temperatures.
Wait for the British documentary which takes dead aim at Al Gore and his theories. It will air March 8. Think it will be up for an Oscar, it is a documentary and about climate change, so it should qualify. No I think hell and earth will freeze over first.

Oh I get it, didn’t the pig in Orwell’s Animal House warn us about this. Words can mean anything or something along those lines. So warming means cooling.
And shove your crap about modeling. I already know that the climate models we have cant even begin to factor in clouds and their effect. The models just are not very good right now. So if the model sucks, how likely is the output going to be to accurate?

Gary,
I’m sorry things are not as simple as you would like them to be. If you can’t tell the difference between the terms “global warming” and “stratospheric cooling” you can’t understand the scientific issues. The important thing is that models predicted the cooling before it was seen. Skeptics such as yourself used this as evidence that the models “sucked,” But then cooling in the stratosphere was discovered and the skeptics moved on to something else without batting an eye. It’s very easy to do op-ed science from the sidelines. Real research is a lot more difficult.
Oh, and I think you’ve demonstrated that you are not capable of evaluating climate models.

“Off sets” have been around quite a while, used in settings different than the war on Global Warming. In the U.S. Civil War the nation instituted the military draft to fill its Army with able bodied men, but prospective draftees were allowed to “off set” their contribution by paying a substitute to take his place in the Army; using another citizens “foot prints” in a fighting regiment, allowing those who can afford to buy a substitute from getting their dainty little hands dirty & bloody from the sordid little affair. Apparenlty, this is the same method that Al intends to use in fighting the war on Global Warming. How convenient.

Some of you seem to have your panties in a bunch because only rich people are making out from this GIM situation. Did anyone ever stop to bitch about the fact that the middle class is being pushed down to poverty levels in this country? And do NOT tell me that the economy is stronger than its ever been blah blah blah. I was once middle class, I work two jobs , take out astronomical student loans to attend two schools all so that I can be poor. There are hardly any jobs in my area (and its not rural) , my father was laid off from his whopping 14 hr. job recently and his only prospect after fifteen years with a company is the local mc’ds. Housing is unaffordable, and you can only receive assistance if you make like 2,000/ a year for a family of four. Basically you all seem to be forgetting one very important factor, what this president has done to this majority of tax payers in this country. He has driven us to suicides, to outstanding credit card debts so we can buy groceries for our children , has driven us to hopelessness. I can tell you though, my sister in law, who is insanely rich , is very happy to stay with a republican administration, you see she has been receiving some MAJOR tax breaks since GW took office…with Clinton, well she was actually paying tax on her income. Poor thing.
Just keep in mind that this is a country of actual , honest to god, REAL people. And most of us are dwindling economically. This is why most of us cannot afford invest in anything…stock what’s that? Gee let me see, shall I buy some stock this week or make sure there is some peanut butter, jelly and bread in the cabinet for my 6 year old to eat.
Some of you are just self righteous bastards. You want to stand up on your pedastal and preach about how great your king is , my guess is because he is a good ol’ christian boy, but in all actuality I bet that man would sell his soul for a little bit of profit (I might even go as far as to say he already has). GW has done NOTHING for the majority of this country except chew us up and spit us out. Go ahead , try and disagree with me, hell try and disagree with anyone who lives the same way most of us do and we’ll tell you straight up that this man has done absolutely nothing for health care, education , job growth etc…in this country. All he has done is started a war based on lies, neglected an ENTIRE devastated area (yeah, um hello, how easily we all forget Katrina) on and on and on down the list. We should all be so lucky that our only problem to worry about is Al Gore making a little money off a GOOD thing.

Roy: So what you’re saying is, paying somebody to put up solar panels rather than doing it yourself is the same as paying a poor person to go to war, fight, and die, rather than doing it yourself?
Look, carbon offsets are simple, basic economics. Atmospheric CO2 is infinitely substitutable. Mama Gaia doesn’t care if a particle of carbon dioxide was emitted by a Hummer headed off to shoot spotted owls or by the dying breath of a starving child. Its effect on the atmosphere — and on climate — is exactly the same. So when you’re looking for ways to put a dent in global warming, the question shouldn’t be, “How can I reduce the number of molecules coming out of my specific tailpipe and out of the smokestack of the plant that powers my specific house?” It should be, “How can I keep as many molecules out of the atmosphere as possible?”
That’s where carbon credits come in. It’s a simple economic fact that some people are in a better position to reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 than others. Imagine that there were two proposals for knocking out 500 tons of CO2. The first is to have me pay $5000 to upgrade the insulation on my house. The second is to use higher quality insulation in a house that’s scheduled to be built (cost, $500). Now, if my entire goal is to take 500 tons out of the atmosphere (that is, I’m not looking for a warmer house or lower heating bills), then why pay $5000 for the result when I could pay $500 for it?
Of course, my example is easily abused. Any developer could simply drop the R-value of the insulation they propose to use, and make money being paid to bring it back up to the value they’d actually intended to use from the beginning. But I don’t consider the problem insurmountable.
I’ve seen so many people claim that carbon credits are tantamount to indulgences. Such comparisons overlook a critical point: the biggest problem with indulgences wasn’t that they were unequally available across the wealth distribution spectrum; it was that they didn’t work. Buying an indulgence did nothing to undo any damage the sinner might have caused; all it did was assuage his guilt. But if “sin” were a real, harmful physical substance, and purchasing indulgences actually removed it, then being “sin-neutral” would actually be a useful thing.
One accusation I’ve seen kicked around is that carbon offsets are illusory, because many of the projects that generate them would be economical without them (and therefore would have been done anyways). That sounds reasonable on the surface. But you can argue against this reasoning by invoking the free market. If a project is viable without carbon credits, that’s the same as saying that the project is producing credits at zero cost. This both drives down the price of credits, and encourages similar projects. Less efficient schemes for pulling CO2 will be priced out of the market. Credits will also take marginal programs and make them more viable.
You may think, “Gee, isn’t that *distorting* the free market?” Quite the contrary. As it stands, CO2 represents a huge market failure, because those who benefit from CO2 production aren’t forced to incur the costs brought about by their pollution. Americans produce a quarter of the world’s emissions, but our wealth means that we will probably suffer less than people in far less culpable nations. Folks on either side of the red/blue divide should recognize that correcting externalities is important, and that often the government is uniquely equipped to correct them.
In this case, the government might have a role in regulating carbon trading companies, but their primary function would be to stimulate demand. For example, they could work carbon credits into local building codes, or provide tax incentives to companies that demonstrate commitment to carbon neutrality.
If an offset program meets the all important criterion of verifiability (CO2 is being reduced in the amounts claimed) then I see no reason they shouldn’t work as advertised. These programs also place some very real limits on how directly the government must regulate in order to achieve its goals. Estimates of carbon pollution, prevention, and sequestration all have to bear at least passing resemblance to reality. Rather than telling specific industries to adopt specific mitigation techniques, or banning specific products, governments can simply reorient the incentive structure, and let the market find the best way to accomplish the goals.

I’m too tired and too tied up this weekend to offer commentary; but I felt compelled to post this….I think it pretty well speaks for itself, anyway… From the Evening Standard: With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global…

It’s funny how people will talk about President George Bush in the negative, as though they have all the agencies and intelligence networking, world leaders, industry leaders, etc. speaking to them and thereby are able to actually arrive at a reasonable conclusion about George Bush, and what truly makes it laughable is such things usually occur with ad hominem or other character insinuations.
One would think at some point they would realize that the same greed factor they assume of one party is prevalent and consistent throughout mankind, meaning that their pedestalized demagogues, such as Al Gore who screams and cries over the .55% (max human contribution to Co2 gases) yet with full intention of selling carbon offsets (meaning a “pay as you go” justification for exhausting Co2) because reality is that the earth puts out the other 99.45% of Co2 anually, and that scientifically as a matter of fact per the data collected by the environmentally educated (Phds for and against Co2 caused Global Warming), there is no way other than interrupting nature to actually lower the Co2 output significantly. Now keep in mind that the Co2 output by nature hasn’t been rising dramatically, meaning that the Al Gore theory suggests .10% (thats 1/10th of one percent) change in Co2 is able to destroy the planet. At our lowest recorded point man made Co2 output was .45% of the total planetary Co2 output annually, max was .55% and currently it is lower than it’s maximum and has been since the 1940s. It it at all obvious that the Earth isn’t so fragile that 1/10th of one percent of Co2 output will not destroy the planet? However such is as unprovable as the existence of UFOs or God as to prove the point would be to destroy the planet to show the threshold when such would not have occurred.
Be that as it may Apparently Mars polar caps melting has no significant influence on looking at the warming that is occurring as a solar event, likely a common solar cycle as has been often suggested by the geophysicists who actually look at the history of the earth based on core samples, a history that reflects the solar cycles which we really haven’t paid much attention to even when discussing global warming, very odd indeed.
It truly is funny how reason and science are thrown out the window in favor of emotional manipulations (using the disappointment factor of so many who hate George Bush and wanted Al Gore to win, seriously exploiting half the population of the United States) perpetrated by such persons as Al Gore and this blind following (the same who tend to generally find Christains as having “blind faith”) who have chosen their christ (so to speak, I mean he is “prophesying gloom and doom if man doesn’t change his ways”) in Al Gore yet, again oddly, not out of understanding the science or bringing Mr. Gore to reject the profit motive of his global warming promotion (evident from his carbon credit fund) but instead these individuals embrace the theory without even the slightest unemotional review. Maybe it was the Hollywood Special effects and embellishments of science, even misuse of data and misrepresentations of date by bar graphs (the correlative of Co2 and global temperatures in fact shows the Co2 gas output FOLLOWING AND NOT LEADING globaly temperature fluctuations by 600 years) that, along with emotionally charging the issue, made some feel they had an opportunity to be a Han Solo and join Luke Skywalker Gore to protect the planet and our people using the force, the “light sabre” of persuasion through misrepresentation and downright lies for the sake of Gore’s apparent god, the “Almighty Dollar.”
And to those who might suggest some sort of numbers of scientists in their need to find support for the concept irrespective of the impropriety of their demagogue Al, sorry but the facts are not determined by agreement but instead by the objective measurements through instruments, measurements that are not disputed by the pro or con Co2 produces global warming camps. Those facts happen to be the .55% manmade versus 99.45% natural of 100% of the Worldwide Co2 ouput annually. I seriously you followers of the elite lawyer Al Gore whose carbon credit fund provides polluters with a justifiable means to pollute (we have that now but not for specific gases) because the cost of purchasing carbon credits is less than the government fines can get over yourselves and needing to put down those who bring up the facts of Al Gore’s motis operande, that you instead can “take the high road” and recognize this financial objective brought up by Riehl IS Al Gore’s genuine “Inconvenient Truth.”
Cheers

How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed
From the Inside Flap
LiarsAl Gore, the United Nations, the New York Times. The global warming lobby, relentless in its push for bigger governme…

How can that be?? The UN’s climate change body has suspended one of its leading auditing companies after a spot check revealed ‘irregularities’. … The UNFCCC has found that Norway’s Det Norske Veritas (DNV) is guilty of “non-conformity” in carrying…

(Via NewsBusters) During one of his campaign speeches, then-Senator Obama promised us that we would see his election as the day the planet began to cool and the oceans’ rise began to slow. In other words, if you buy into…

Hi, I have thought about purchasing the software package DubTurbo Beatmaker and was hoping someone could give me an actual authentic evaluation of the computer software. A number of the web pages that offer appraisals are in reality internet marketers offering the software therefore i question that the product reviews are real. Thanks a lot in advance for just about any information any person can offer.

[…] carbon footprint in-between taking private jets around the world, and founding companies directly profiting from the carbon tax policies, a Russian Ship with a bunch of scientists is frozen stuck in the Antarctica, 14ft deep in ice. […]